Orange PAWG cap: R.I.P.

[Garibaldi]

250 square inches. A hat might barely qualify, if you count all the material on both sides.. yes, the side you can't see.. ;-)

No, but I bet that orange vest you're supposed to wear over your BDU's is over 250 square inches...

But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?

[kwe1009]

And the AF emphatically said "NO!!!!!!!!!!" End of discussion.Not even throwing the 'safety' card made them budge. Unless you wear the field uniform.

That's because boonies are not worn in the AF unless in theater and then when it's authorized.  Outside of maybe some AFSCs here in CONUS it's not worn even in the field.

The AF leadership is very anti-boonie hat.  Many times when I was in the sandbox the commander would not allow them to be worn.

[abdsp51]

The AF leadership is very anti-boonie hat.  Many times when I was in the sandbox the commander would not allow them to be worn.

Never had that issue.  Always wore a boonie for all locations but one.

[Eclipse]

But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?

Orange vest, or whatever is worn to be seen, is now required to be the outermost garment or
gear worn.

Yes, >over< your plate carrier.

[RiverAux]

If you're NOT hunting, you only have to wear hunter orange on PA state game lands from Monday-Saturday from Nov 15-Dec 15.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pgc/pa_huntingdigest1415/#/19

If you're hunting and there is a requirement for hunter orange during that season, then you wear it. 

So, only VERY VERY limited CAP applicability.

[Storm Chaser]

250 square inches. A hat might barely qualify, if you count all the material on both sides.. yes, the side you can't see.. ;-)

No, but I bet that orange vest you're supposed to wear over your BDU's is over 250 square inches...

But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?

If you're wearing gear over your vest, then the gear/pack have to be ANSI II compliant or you need to wrap the gear with another vest or similar material that meets the ANSI II requirements. Otherwise, the intent of CAPR 62-1 is not being met.

[Eclipse]

If you're NOT hunting, you only have to wear hunter orange on PA state game lands from Monday-Saturday from Nov 15-Dec 15.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/pgc/pa_huntingdigest1415/#/19

If you're hunting and there is a requirement for hunter orange during that season, then you wear it. 

So, only VERY VERY limited CAP applicability.

Not to mention that any SAR in an active hunting area raises the ORM significantly and needs to be accounted for
by the IC and GBD as to whether we should be in there at all.

[RiverAux]

Being shot by a hunter is considerably less likely than being in an accident on the way to the scene.

I would do it in a heartbeat for an actual mission and for a SAREX I would probably still do it, but ask the managers if we could post some temp signs at parking areas in the area we're going to use to let people know we'd be in the area on whatever date. 

[sarmed1]

But who can tell with all the stuff we wear OVER it?

Orange vest, or whatever is worn to be seen, is now required to be the outermost garment or
gear worn.

Yes, >over< your plate carrier.

Devils advocate: I believe the Reg just says outermost garment (you added the rest).

b. Safety vests are approved for wear over the outermost garment of AF-style uniform or corporate uniform and must be ANSI compliant as defined in paragraph 7d below.

Gear is generally not considered a "garment" its equipment.
This was a much better way to word it I think:

Otherwise, the intent of CAPR 62-1 is not being met.

The point is generally though that the ANSI approved material be visable when required by the indicated activites.


MK

[Eclipse]

OK devil.

Yes, whatever you wear as the outermost garment must be ANSI compliant
as per the regs.

So if your ANSI-wear is your vest, that goes over the plate carrier.

If your tac vest is ANSI-II it can be the the outergarment.

[Storm Chaser]

Agree. An ANSI II vest serves no purpose if it's covered by a plate carrier, MOLLE vest, or other gear.

[sarmed1]

Again.... a plate carrier, lbv, back pack etc isn't a garment...ie if I held up a coat and a plate carrier and asked 100 people which is a garment.....likely all 100 would pick the coat.
Outermost garment of the af or corporate uniform.  When I looked at 39-1 under chapter 6 "outergarments...." there were no pictures of vests, plate carriers etc

Its semantics but if you give someone crap about it you are not really backed up by the letter of the reg.....or it could be a pretty legit argument anyway.

MK

[Storm Chaser]

It's not even open for discussion. The purpose of the ANSI II vest is safety. As an IC, OSC, GBD and GTL, I require my ground teams to wear their vests over the outer garment/gear in low light or low visibility conditions.

The regulation says the vest is approved over the uniform, which means it can be worn. It doesn't say only over the outermost garment. When it comes to safety, common sense should prevail.

[sarmed1]

Common sense is not always so common.....otherwise we wouldnt need redundant safety messages to enforce safety issues...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y84vk2_HwPU/UJpb_T7DzYI/AAAAAAAAFjc/Vs7rww3G8jU/s1600/hair-dryer-warning-label.png

mk

[Eclipse]

I'm not even sure the point trying to be made here.

If you're wearing your safety vest, jacket, whatever, >under< your non-ansi plate carrier or anything else,
you're doing it wrong.  The reg was written to insure that whatever you're wearing (it does not have to be a "vest", pre se),
it has to on top of everything else.

The problem was members who would have their vest crammed under their tacticool gear and you could not see it.

That or the functional equivalent of a bright orange sock on their arm, which has never been compliant.

[lordmonar]

The problem is stupid regs.

It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.

Whether it TAKICOOL or just your school back pack.

The amount of safety added by the vest is not worth the heart ache we have here on CAPTALK arguing about how it should be worn.

I don't wear a vest.....yep you hear me say it...I don't wear a vest.

I got one.....but when I'm carrying my gear in the woods....I have a part of a vest Velcroed to my pack....but I'm not wearing a vest.

I carry a vest in my pack....for when I take off my pack and "need" it....but I don't wear my vest.

[Eclipse]

The problem is stupid regs.

It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.

So by "next to impossible" you meant "pretty easy if you buy gear appropriate for SAR and not Airsoft??"

[lordmonar]

The problem is stupid regs.

It is next to impossible to wear an ANSI compliant vest.....and not have gear over it.

So by "next to impossible" you meant "pretty easy if you buy gear appropriate for SAR and not Airsoft??"

No I....I meant what I said.

If you want to berate SAR members over their choice of gear.......or lack of choice as the case may be....please don't use my words to do it.

[Eclipse]

It's not close to "next to impossible", in fact, if CAP was smart it would be mandated.

It's one thing if you're a new cadet and someone hands you an LBV from the unit supply
closet and says "enjoy", it's another when experienced members crank their credit
cards at Blackhawk and then never use the gear outside ramp checks and the occasional
camping trip "bivouac".

It's a third thing entirely when experienced commanders and staff don't educate their
members on "need vs. nice" and that NHQ doesn't understand the detrimental
effect on CAP's image that going on an ELT search dressed like a "Call of Duty" NPC has.

[lordmonar]

It's not close to "next to impossible", in fact, if CAP was smart it would be mandated.

It's one thing if you're a new cadet and someone hands you an LBV from the unit supply
closet and says "enjoy", it's another when experienced members crank their credit
cards at Blackhawk and then never use the gear outside ramp checks and the occasional
camping trip "bivouac".

It's a third thing entirely when experienced commanders and staff don't educate their
members on "need vs. nice" and that NHQ doesn't understand the detrimental
effect on CAP's image that going on an ELT search dressed like a "Call of Duty" NPC has.

Okay....you have proposed "the detrimental effect on CAP's image"........so........wait for it.......CITE PLEASE!

Establish for the reader....what the determent is, how you measured said determent, and how you plan to evaluate your proposed solution.